This template is within the scope of WikiProject Viruses, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of viruses on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
This template is within the scope of WikiProject Southeast Asia, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Southeast Asia-related subjects on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
This template is within the scope of WikiProject Geography, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of geography on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
I myself, had an edit done once on the said template, (see Archive 2), which I stated that it must be reverted, especially that the toll was not based upon official list of the health department in our country.
On the other hand, the ECDC ref of Malaysian tally is not tallied to the referenced ECDC pdf file, so constituting from deductions, it must be reverted, then, but this was not an issue perhaps. We must be open-minded with this matter, especially that there are many people living in Asia that wanted to be part of this truth and accountability campaign.--JL 09Talk to me! 22:05, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
The said edit which you are revering to is the Philippines where it is stated that 8 people have died in the Philippines. Apparently you have added 1 more death to the total which was the death of a Filipino in Hong Kong according to the article. The first reference was dated 22 July, and didn't have a total number of deaths -  and the 2nd reference stated that there were 8 deaths in total (which correspond to the ECDC total) -  Do you have any references that state that there are 9 deaths in total in Philippines? Otherwise you should revert the total back to 8. Roman888 ~ User talk:Roman888 14:13, 01 August 2009 (UTC)
First is that the 22 July article states that the matter is the 5th death, so there must be four deaths beforehand. Consequently, the reference with Cordillera said it has 4 deaths making a grand total of nine deaths. Second, five plus four plus 1 is not nine, but 10. Third, if we shall insist to add all valid references that will make the tally verifiable, then here:
First Philippine and Asian death. First death reported in the Philippines and Asia, a 49-year-old Filipino woman with myocardial infarction with H1N1 disease history. Later reports shown that she was an employee of the Philippine House of Representatives (Lower House/Congress) which prompted the House to be closed for weeks. Tally: 1
Second and third deaths A 74-year-old Filipino man with respiratory ailments (of which most effective and responsible for death was emphysema) and a 19-year-old Filipino man with history of asthma. No further identity was give. Tally: 3
Perhaps one must know that Philippine death, unlike in Thailand or Americas isn't due to the influenza itself, but the influenza virus made their existing diseases (like respiratory diseases, cardiovascular diseases) more effective. DOH reported that causes of their deaths are all due to their own pre-diseases. What makes them notable is that they all died with H1N1 infection.--JL 09Talk to me! 06:55, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
Alright then, since you put it that way. We will leave it at 9 deaths in total for the Philippines until further notice. Perhaps we should used a reference source which states that the actual total number of deaths instead of using currently 2 references. Roman888 ~ User talk:Roman888 21:20, 01 August 2009 (UTC)
I agree to that. But effectively and surprisingly, there are no actual news source yet written that may integrate all nine into a single reference. This is largely because news companies tend to compete and the RP health department itself does not give updates anymore (per WHO order, and fearing that people may go panic). So: much of the figures on the news are re-tabulated only from the former counts, and previous count (the 2,600+ something) is merely a guess done by news company to tally the actual reports coming from local governments.--JL 09Talk to me! 13:43, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
I think we must regulate the estimation on this template. For example, the Philippines here has 5,000 persons infected with H1N1. The source http://www.abs-cbnnews.com/nation/08/29/09/doh-second-wave-h1n1-more-virulent says that there are nearly 5,000. Does using the number 5,000 admissible? We can deduce it by writing ~5,000, not by claiming that there are really 5,000 people since that is very difficult to mark and that many nations never released any updates since WHO said that these updates are no longer viable.--JL 09q?c 16:35, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
Another is that Israeli, South Korean and Singaporean sources said that they are actually estimates, so there must be an indifference between saying the actual count with zeros than an estimate. For example, you cannot say that SK has 15,000 count since the source itself claims that that is an estimate.--JL 09q?c 16:44, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
A simple solution is to put the figures in brackets stating with a footnote saying that these figures are estimates. From time to time health ministries from some of these countries will announce milestone figures together with the number of fatalities. We should not discount any announcement from media sources if that is the case. Roman888 (talk) 08:14, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
No, I don't ask to insert citations from each line to say that they were only estimate, but remember that the WHO ordered nations to stop updating their numbers. Saying that a country has 15,000 cases, as what the citation implies, are purely estimate. The template claims that they are the real figures. Then that is real a disputed fact. Template:2009 flu pandemic table uses bracketing scheme to say that they are not the real numbers, but an estimated one. Well, we cannot claim that there are really 15,000 so and so because Wikipedia can be a source of info.--JL 09q?c 07:09, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
The same template uses + and a bracket in the Philippines count, to indicate that they are only estimates, and it uses the same reference used here.--JL 09q?c 07:12, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
Finally, the Israeli source says "out of more than 3,000 people diagnosed", Korean says "and more than 15,000 cumulative cases have been confirmed across the nation" and Singaporean says "We have more than 7,000 confirmed cases". I recommend to read these citations first, then adopt the systems used in that template, especially that this template turns to be misleading.--JL 09q?c 07:17, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
I agree with you that we don't need to put citations for every line that says that these are estimates. That is why we just put in a footnote stating that those numbers in brackets or highlighted or bolded black or coloured are estimates. That will differentiate them from those which are laboratory confirmed cases. Some countries are still counting the number of cases. These might not be on a daily basis but on a weekly basis. We compared this during the initial outbreak of the cases and the present situation now, where WHO has announced that there is a second outbreak of A(H1N1) ongoing. Its just like you read the news on certain sports like US Open golf, where a majority of the players are American. The newspapers will put a footnote stating that "unless stated these players are American'. Roman888 (talk) 12:51, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
I cannot understand why Turkey is in the list. She is generally categorized as a European country.Kavas (talk) 19:05, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
Under the auspices of WHO, Turkey belongs under the Asian umbrella. Please read the archives of this table discussion. There were a lot of heated arguments about where Turkey belong in the beginning. Roman888 (talk) 05:29, 25 October 2009 (UTC)